6 ms·

Somehow I think the Chinese people are better off with access to Google than without. It’s not like Google is actively developing next gen censorship and oppres

Somehow I think the Chinese people are better off with access to Google than without. It’s not like Google is actively developing next gen censorship and oppression technology by applying a url blacklist.

lostmsu 8y ago
In the short term - maybe. But in the long term it impedes free information exchange, leading to a slow down of progress, and hence well-being.
raxxorrax 8y ago
Possible. But it will also mean that Google probably does the same in other countries and you should not think you would be exempt from this. It also does justify and support censorship Chinese people are subjected to. You can argue that is not up to Google to judge the chinese government and that might be correct. It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid. Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. Which doesn't even need to make many laws like that because companies like Google and FB will happily comply [0], with what they expect might ruffle some feathers [0] before having the regulation forced on them. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-artist-donald-trump-penis https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-arti...
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    Yes they do and they have to, if they want to operate on this market. And if they do they accept disadvantages like censorship. I don't think I like this quality in a search service.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      Google also drops child pornography and copyright-infringing search results. It's a quality you can dislike, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a search engine with anywhere near the same order of magnitude of quality that doesn't adhere to these rules also. DDG does. Yahoo does. For a corporation, to refrain from working with the government is to be hounded by the government. That's semi-incompatible with providing services.
      - raxxorrax 8y ago
        From that angle my view isn't that principled that I equate the use of child pornography with being a political dissident. And would Google provide child pornography if mandated to do so? I don't expect very much from a corporation trying to get into new markets. But I will still point my finger at them.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    "Just following the rules" is a poor excuse when the rules are obviously, unequivocally evil. We established that at Nuremberg, if not before. Someone's going to say that letting companies make moral judgments is a slippery slope. But someone's gotta do it. I don't claim access to universal truth, but some things are clearly wrong.
    - matz1 8y ago
      The problem is, nothing is unequivocally evil. What you think of evil might not what I think evil.
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        Lots of things are unequivocally evil. Rape is evil. Genocide is evil. If you think they're okay, you are wrong. I don't claim universal moral authority. Lots of things are complicated. Some things aren't. Morality can be relative, and there's some interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, but eventually you have to take a stand on something.
        matz1 8y ago
        Nope, Assume I think rape is not evil, then sure, just as you can say I'm wrong, likewise I too can say you are the one who is wrong. Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it.
        PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        Sure, anyone can say anything is morally acceptable. That doesn't make them right. The fact that different opinions exist does not mean that morality is meaningless. > Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it. Of course. That's why I think concrete action should be taken. In this case, Google should not support totalitarian government censorship. I'm honestly not sure what your point was here.
  - thisisit 8y ago
    > Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. If only that was true. They routinely fight against government rulings in democratic countries because they can. For example, fines from European Union. They don't simply rollover and pay the fines rather exhaust all measures to try and avoid it. All the while they will rollover in China because that might hurt their chances of getting into a rather lucrative market.
    - Aunche 8y ago
      Part of being a democracy means that Google is free to contest any rulings. Also, how do you know that Google isn't negiotiating with the Chinese government?
      - curt15 8y ago
        Fruitful negotiations require a rule of law.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. They are both "regimes", if you're American. Are you British perhaps? From Wikipedia: "Webster's definition states that the word régime refers simply to a form of government, while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one"."
    - freeflight 8y ago
      Also from Wikipedia, the sentence right before the one you quoted: > While the word régime originates as a synonym for any type of government, modern usage has given it a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. And that's by far the most common context for using the term. Barely anybody uses "regime" as a neutral term, it's usually used to denounce a government/administration as "bad/illegitimate/not democratic". For the same reason "regime change" is called like that to give it a semblance of being a legitimate course of action to "build democracy", while a forced "government change" suddenly doesn't sound all that nice anymore. Case in point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/is-it-the-trump-administration-or-the-trump-regime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b9ab1351cc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/... (open incognito to bypass paywall)
romanovcode 8y ago
> It’s not like Google is actively developing next gen censorship and oppression technology by applying a url blacklist. You're right, they are actively developing next-gen censorship and oppression technology with much more advanced and stealthy methods.
- sixothree 8y ago
  I can't tell if he was being sarcastic or not.
rndgermandude 8y ago
How long until Google will (be forced to) feed back information about searches and visited websites* into China's social scoring/citizens score system and will thereby actively help the government in their effort to oppress any dissent? * AMP is still a thing, right
- hopler 8y ago
  This is what Project Dragonfly is, according to wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)
OrgNet 8y ago
Do you really think that Google doesn't have a worldwide URL blacklist?
anovikov 8y ago
I guess Google would be better off building a technology that comprehensively defeats any attempts of censorship? That way Chinese users will also have google, but an unrestricted. Maybe by becoming openly hostile to China in the most direct sense, like recognizing Taiwan as the only China. Google has resources to do it.
duxup 8y ago
We felt like that economically too. Not working out.
o10449366 8y ago
"url blacklist" is a gross oversimplification of Dragonfly. If it was that simple Google would already be back in China. It would be naive to think that China isn't making sophisticated demands of Google and that they won't continue to make more now that Google has morally backtracked.
AlexandrB 8y ago
> Somehow I think the Chinese people are better off with access to Google than without. I think the Chinese people are better off without the Chinese government having access to Google. Google is at it's core an advertising and surveillance company. Its true customers are not the users but the advertisers. Political advertising (AKA propaganda) would only get more powerful in China with Google as an outlet.
schuke 8y ago
You're absolutely correct. The Party don't want us to access that tiny percentage of Google results that are political. Yet most in the west want us to have fuck-all. It's good intention. But the result is even worse.
- hangonhn 8y ago
  No. No it's not better. Half-truths are worse than outright lies. The difference between my parent's generation and my generation of Chinese is that my generation actually believes the Party whereas my parent's generation take everything the Party say with a huge dose of skepticism. It's not that the current generation is any dumber but rather the Party has gotten a lot smarter about censorship to give the illusion of truth. The most insidious lies are those built on selective "truth". There is a reason why you are asked to not just tell the truth but also the whole truth when you give your testimony in court.
wickedsmile 8y ago
Do you work for Google by chance? I've seen plenty of Googlers legitimising Google's action to save their face in public gatherings.
lohszvu 8y ago
You really think all Google us doing is a URL blacklist? They are a machine learning company.

lostmsu 8y ago

In the short term - maybe. But in the long term it impedes free information exchange, leading to a slow down of progress, and hence well-being.

raxxorrax 8y ago

Possible. But it will also mean that Google probably does the same in other countries and you should not think you would be exempt from this. It also does justify and support censorship Chinese people are subjected to. You can argue that is not up to Google to judge the chinese government and that might be correct. It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid.

freeflight 8y ago
> It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid. Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. Which doesn't even need to make many laws like that because companies like Google and FB will happily comply [0], with what they expect might ruffle some feathers [0] before having the regulation forced on them. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-artist-donald-trump-penis https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-arti...
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  Yes they do and they have to, if they want to operate on this market. And if they do they accept disadvantages like censorship. I don't think I like this quality in a search service.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    Google also drops child pornography and copyright-infringing search results. It's a quality you can dislike, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a search engine with anywhere near the same order of magnitude of quality that doesn't adhere to these rules also. DDG does. Yahoo does. For a corporation, to refrain from working with the government is to be hounded by the government. That's semi-incompatible with providing services.
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      From that angle my view isn't that principled that I equate the use of child pornography with being a political dissident. And would Google provide child pornography if mandated to do so? I don't expect very much from a corporation trying to get into new markets. But I will still point my finger at them.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  "Just following the rules" is a poor excuse when the rules are obviously, unequivocally evil. We established that at Nuremberg, if not before. Someone's going to say that letting companies make moral judgments is a slippery slope. But someone's gotta do it. I don't claim access to universal truth, but some things are clearly wrong.
  - matz1 8y ago
    The problem is, nothing is unequivocally evil. What you think of evil might not what I think evil.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Lots of things are unequivocally evil. Rape is evil. Genocide is evil. If you think they're okay, you are wrong. I don't claim universal moral authority. Lots of things are complicated. Some things aren't. Morality can be relative, and there's some interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, but eventually you have to take a stand on something.
      - matz1 8y ago
        Nope, Assume I think rape is not evil, then sure, just as you can say I'm wrong, likewise I too can say you are the one who is wrong. Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it.
        PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        Sure, anyone can say anything is morally acceptable. That doesn't make them right. The fact that different opinions exist does not mean that morality is meaningless. > Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it. Of course. That's why I think concrete action should be taken. In this case, Google should not support totalitarian government censorship. I'm honestly not sure what your point was here.
- thisisit 8y ago
  > Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. If only that was true. They routinely fight against government rulings in democratic countries because they can. For example, fines from European Union. They don't simply rollover and pay the fines rather exhaust all measures to try and avoid it. All the while they will rollover in China because that might hurt their chances of getting into a rather lucrative market.
  - Aunche 8y ago
    Part of being a democracy means that Google is free to contest any rulings. Also, how do you know that Google isn't negiotiating with the Chinese government?
    - curt15 8y ago
      Fruitful negotiations require a rule of law.
- magduf 8y ago
  >That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. They are both "regimes", if you're American. Are you British perhaps? From Wikipedia: "Webster's definition states that the word régime refers simply to a form of government, while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one"."
  - freeflight 8y ago
    Also from Wikipedia, the sentence right before the one you quoted: > While the word régime originates as a synonym for any type of government, modern usage has given it a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. And that's by far the most common context for using the term. Barely anybody uses "regime" as a neutral term, it's usually used to denounce a government/administration as "bad/illegitimate/not democratic". For the same reason "regime change" is called like that to give it a semblance of being a legitimate course of action to "build democracy", while a forced "government change" suddenly doesn't sound all that nice anymore. Case in point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/is-it-the-trump-administration-or-the-trump-regime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b9ab1351cc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/... (open incognito to bypass paywall)

romanovcode 8y ago

> It’s not like Google is actively developing next gen censorship and oppression technology by applying a url blacklist. You're right, they are actively developing next-gen censorship and oppression technology with much more advanced and stealthy methods.

sixothree 8y ago
I can't tell if he was being sarcastic or not.

rndgermandude 8y ago

How long until Google will (be forced to) feed back information about searches and visited websites* into China's social scoring/citizens score system and will thereby actively help the government in their effort to oppress any dissent? * AMP is still a thing, right

hopler 8y ago
This is what Project Dragonfly is, according to wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)

OrgNet 8y ago

Do you really think that Google doesn't have a worldwide URL blacklist?

anovikov 8y ago

I guess Google would be better off building a technology that comprehensively defeats any attempts of censorship? That way Chinese users will also have google, but an unrestricted. Maybe by becoming openly hostile to China in the most direct sense, like recognizing Taiwan as the only China. Google has resources to do it.

duxup 8y ago

We felt like that economically too. Not working out.

o10449366 8y ago

"url blacklist" is a gross oversimplification of Dragonfly. If it was that simple Google would already be back in China. It would be naive to think that China isn't making sophisticated demands of Google and that they won't continue to make more now that Google has morally backtracked.

AlexandrB 8y ago

> Somehow I think the Chinese people are better off with access to Google than without. I think the Chinese people are better off without the Chinese government having access to Google. Google is at it's core an advertising and surveillance company. Its true customers are not the users but the advertisers. Political advertising (AKA propaganda) would only get more powerful in China with Google as an outlet.

schuke 8y ago

You're absolutely correct. The Party don't want us to access that tiny percentage of Google results that are political. Yet most in the west want us to have fuck-all. It's good intention. But the result is even worse.

hangonhn 8y ago
No. No it's not better. Half-truths are worse than outright lies. The difference between my parent's generation and my generation of Chinese is that my generation actually believes the Party whereas my parent's generation take everything the Party say with a huge dose of skepticism. It's not that the current generation is any dumber but rather the Party has gotten a lot smarter about censorship to give the illusion of truth. The most insidious lies are those built on selective "truth". There is a reason why you are asked to not just tell the truth but also the whole truth when you give your testimony in court.

wickedsmile 8y ago

Do you work for Google by chance? I've seen plenty of Googlers legitimising Google's action to save their face in public gatherings.

lohszvu 8y ago

You really think all Google us doing is a URL blacklist? They are a machine learning company.